54
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 17 Dec 2023
54 points (100.0% liked)
SneerClub
983 readers
2 users here now
Hurling ordure at the TREACLES, especially those closely related to LessWrong.
AI-Industrial-Complex grift is fine as long as it sufficiently relates to the AI doom from the TREACLES. (Though TechTakes may be more suitable.)
This is sneer club, not debate club. Unless it's amusing debate.
[Especially don't debate the race scientists, if any sneak in - we ban and delete them as unsuitable for the server.]
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Feynman had a story about trying to read somebody's paper before a grand interdisciplinary symposium. As he told it, he couldn't get through the jargon, until he stopped and tried to translate just one sentence. He landed on a line like, "The individual member of the social community often receives information through visual, symbolic channels." And after a lot of crossing-out, he reduced that to "People read."
Yud, who idolizes Feynman above all others:
Ah. People don't like to hurt.
More like "People want things and hurt if they don't get them. Also, look at me saying things like utility function! Function is math! Math is smart. I am smart! Isn't that so cool?"
tbh I don't think that's a good rephrasing by feynman.
I also don't think yud intended to claim that people don't like to hurt. I'm pretty sure what he meant is that people have a strong desire not to desire things fruitlessly, one that can outweigh EV considerations. still gibberish unless you have enough rationalist brain poisoning to take the assumptions behind "can outweigh EV considerations" seriously, which I don't
It's definitely a bad rephrasing. It's like trying to simplify E = MC² to "big boom". Like technically yes, matter can be converted into energy but that loses a lot in the rephrasing. It just sounds like he didn't understand the subject.
I too wish academics, and those at least pretending, would do away with the rhetorical peacocking. Nobody learns from it and it makes the writing inaccessible. It's deliberate gatekeeping confused for professional writing.